Should Bush be Censured for violating the US Constitution, hence breaking the law? It looks like republicans don't have to fight their own battle on this one. Democrats are doing the work for them. Feingold is currently a man who stands alone.

Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure

WASHINGTON, Mar. 14, 2006 (AP)

(AP) Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush is headed for the Senate Judiciary Committee, advancing a contentious debate over whether the president deserves a formal rebuke for his secret wiretapping program.

"I look forward to a full hearing, debate and vote in committee on this important matter," Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement. "If the committee fails to consider the resolution expeditiously, I will ask that there be a vote in the full Senate."

A possible presidential contender in 2008, Feingold said Bush broke the law and violated the Constitution when he authorized the National Security Agency to conduct a warrantless wiretapping program as part of the war on terrorism.

"Congress must respond," Feingold said Monday on the Senate floor. "A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the president thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable."

Feingold's introduction of the five-page censure resolution set off maneuvering among his fellow Democrats to prevent a vote that could alienate swing voters.

Republicans savored the Democrats' discomfort. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., pushed for an immediate floor vote; Democrats protested, saying they hadn't yet read the resolution. Several Democrats offered empathy for Feingold's frustration but no overt support for his resolution.

Feingold is undeterred, saying that simply debating it will keep the Bush administration and congressional Republicans from playing down the matter this midterm election year.

Several Democrats said that before any censure, they want the Senate Intelligence Committee to finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program. In that program, the National Security Agency is allowed to eavesdrop on international calls and e-mails of U.S. residents when terrorism is suspected.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said Tuesday that Feingold's censure effort was "born out of intense frustration" with the administration's lack of candor on the eavesdropping program _ and not out of any effort to further his 2008 presidential ambitions.

"We have no idea what this program is," said Biden, himself a potential 2008 presidential contender, on NBC's "Today" show. He said Feingold was expressing his "absolute frustration with the failure of this administration and this Congress to insist it come forward and tell us what it's doing."

Asked at a news conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined Monday to endorse it and said he hadn't read it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.

"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.

Across the Capitol, reaction was similar. Feingold's censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required."

The resolution says censuring Bush also is warranted by "his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program."

The only president ever censured by the Senate was Andrew Jackson, in 1834, for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig-controlled Senate.

March 16, 2006
Chafee May Support Bush Censure
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), "who cast a protest vote against President Bush's reelection in 2004, says he won't rule out support for what he calls the 'drastic' penalty of a formal Senate censure of Mr. Bush," the Providence Journal reports.

"Chafee has jumped into a debate that Feingold's fellow Democrats have treated with uneasiness at a moment when polls show most Americans supporting the wiretap program -- even as they give Mr. Bush low approval ratings overall."

However, the New York Times notes most Republicans are using the censure proposal as a "rallying cry" to whip up support for Bush.

WASHINGTON -
President Bush said Tuesday the decision about when to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq will fall to future presidents and Iraqi leaders, suggesting that U.S. involvement will continue at least through 2008.

Acknowledging the public's growing unease with the war — and election-year skittishness among fellow Republicans — the president nonetheless vowed to keep U.S. soldiers in the fight.

"If I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there. I wouldn't put those kids there," Bush declared.

He also stood by embattled Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"I don't believe he should resign. He's done a fine job. Every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy," he said.

In his second full-blown news conference of the year, Bush confronted his political problems by addressing them directly.

"Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country," he said. "War creates trauma." He acknowledged that Republicans are worried about their political standing in November.

"There's a certain unease as you head into an election year," Bush told a wide-ranging news conference that lasted nearly an hour.

More than 2,300 Americans have died in three years of war in Iraq. Polls show the public's support of the war and Bush himself have dramatically declined in recent months, jeopardizing the political goodwill he carried out of the 2004 re-election victory.

"I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war," Bush quipped.

When asked about his failed Social Security plan, he simply said: "I didn't get done." But the president defiantly defended his warrantless eavesdropping program, and baited Democrats who suggest that he broke the law.

Calling a censure resolution "needless partisanship," Bush challenged Democrats to go into the November midterm elections in opposition to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. "They ought to stand up and say, `The tools we're using to protect the American people should not be used,'" Bush said.

With the unveiling of misstep after misstep, it will make censure all the easier if the fall elections put democrats in a position to mount a serious inquiry. These kinds of mistakes in the article turns the political tide against the prez.

A senior White House official has told prosecutors that President George Bush authorised the dissemination of previously classified intelligence about Iraq's purported weapons arsenal to the media .

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, is in court charged with obstructing a federal leak investigation. He testified that he had been given permission to share the contents of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities.

He also said he was authorised to talk about Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had been publicly critical of Mr Bush's conduct over Iraq.

Mr Libby's claims are contained within court papers that were made public yesterday.

However, there is nothing in the papers which suggests Mr Libby claims either Mr Bush or Mr Cheney authorised him to reveal the identity of Mr Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative.

Mr Libby was charged last October with five counts in relation to the leaking of Ms Plame's identity - something which constitutes a federal offence.

Among the charges, to which Mr Libby has pleaded not guilty, are perjury and obstruction of justice, though he has not been charged with actually leaking Ms Plame's identity.

Mr Libby's testimony, given to a grand jury before he was charged, reveals that the authorisation from Mr Bush led to him speaking with Judith Miller, who was then a reporter with The New York Times, and discussing with her the contents of the NIE on Iraq.

Ms Miller, who wrote a series of articles about Saddam's purported weapons capabilities that proved to be badly wrong, last year spent 85 days in jail after refusing to reveal her sources to investigators.

She subsequently testified to federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald after receiving personal permission from Mr Libby to identify him as a source of some of her information.

Yesterday's disclosure, first reported by The New York Sun, is likely to have more political implications for Mr Bush, rather than presenting him with legal difficulties.

Some legal experts had speculated that Mr Libby's defence could subpoena Mr Bush and Mr Cheney to testify on his behalf. But it seems presidential authority provides Mr Bush with the power to declassify whatever information he chooses.

The President has previously railed about the leaking of information, however, ordering inquiries after embarrassing information had been passed to the media.

Earlier this year the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation to discover who leaked the Bush administration's secret domestic eavesdropping programme.

A senior White House official has told prosecutors that President George Bush authorised the dissemination of previously classified intelligence about Iraq's purported weapons arsenal to the media .

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, is in court charged with obstructing a federal leak investigation. He testified that he had been given permission to share the contents of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities.

He also said he was authorised to talk about Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had been publicly critical of Mr Bush's conduct over Iraq.

Mr Libby's claims are contained within court papers that were made public yesterday.

However, there is nothing in the papers which suggests Mr Libby claims either Mr Bush or Mr Cheney authorised him to reveal the identity of Mr Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative.

Mr Libby was charged last October with five counts in relation to the leaking of Ms Plame's identity - something which constitutes a federal offence.

Among the charges, to which Mr Libby has pleaded not guilty, are perjury and obstruction of justice, though he has not been charged with actually leaking Ms Plame's identity.
Mr Libby's testimony, given to a grand jury before he was charged, reveals that the authorisation from Mr Bush led to him speaking with Judith Miller, who was then a reporter with The New York Times, and discussing with her the contents of the NIE on Iraq.

Ms Miller, who wrote a series of articles about Saddam's purported weapons capabilities that proved to be badly wrong, last year spent 85 days in jail after refusing to reveal her sources to investigators.

She subsequently testified to federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald after receiving personal permission from Mr Libby to identify him as a source of some of her information.

Yesterday's disclosure, first reported by The New York Sun, is likely to have more political implications for Mr Bush, rather than presenting him with legal difficulties.

Some legal experts had speculated that Mr Libby's defence could subpoena Mr Bush and Mr Cheney to testify on his behalf. But it seems presidential authority provides Mr Bush with the power to declassify whatever information he chooses.

The President has previously railed about the leaking of information, however, ordering inquiries after embarrassing information had been passed to the media.

Earlier this year the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation to discover who leaked the Bush administration's secret domestic eavesdropping programme.

WASHINGTON - The White House faced new questions Wednesday about
President Bush's contention three years ago that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.

The Washington Post reported that a Pentagon-sponsored team of experts determined in May 2003 that two small trailers were not used to make biological weapons. Yet two days after the team sent its findings to Washington in a classified report, Bush declared just the opposite.

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush said in an interview with a Polish TV station. "We found biological laboratories."

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Bush was relying on information from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency when he said the trailers seized after the 2003 invasion were mobile biological laboratories. That information was later discredited by the Iraq Survey Group in its 2004 report.